To Bring peace to the Middle East. We must strengthen moderate Arab leaders and their assertion that the US has good intentions.
We need to bring extremists back to the middle, and we need public opinion around the world to do the same. We need to verify the notion that the US is a benevolent country that looks out for everyone's best interests.
This is not possible through military destruction.
Military destruction always does the exact opposite. It proves the militants right, it says that America is a greedy country, and that we do not care if we destroy people's lives to get what we want. It makes people believe that they have to defend themselves from American might, and they must build a military resistance.
To prove the militants wrong, we must live by international law and we must respect human rights and human life above all else. Snubbing the United Nations and rushing weapons to Israel is the wrong decision if we are looking for peace in the Middle East.
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
08/16/2006 23:02 #21739
The Path toward PeaceCategory: politics
08/13/2006 14:10 #21738
Feel Safer Yet?Category: politics
Republicans have lost their credibility in making Americans safer. After 6 years of Republican rule does anyone feel safer? The world today is seething with chaos and hatred. Much of that hatred is directed toward the US. Should I feel safer now that more people Hate me? Chaos is unfolding in the Middle East. Are we supposed to believe that War was just going to happen anyway? Or is it our involvement that has created these problems, rather that solving them? The Bush administration has provoked and instigated the violence we see today.
The Bush doctrine is preemptive war.
But we forget what war means. What is like to have a bomb dropped in your town, a big explosion in which 12 people die and 30 are injured? Everyone around the explosion stares in disbelief and fear, people pull survivors away from the fire. People's lives are ruined in an instant. Loved ones traumatically die in an act of violence and terror. What does that do to a town? What if at the same time the bridge you take to work has been bombed. The electric plant has been destroyed and the power has been off for days. People are using generators to power refrigerators, and hospitals. Surviving, and helping others survive through gasoline powered generators. While everywhere someone is mourning the loss of a loved one. In Lebanon this is happening right now. Every day.
I fear that nothing is shocking anymore. We have seen so many explosions on TV that we have forgotten the true reality of it. The damage and suffering that they leave in their wake. Over 1,000 civilians have died in Lebanon in the last month. Hundreds of highways and bridges have been destroyed. A power plant on the cost was bombed and the oil the plant used to make electricity spilled onto the Mediterranean coastline creating one of the worst environmental disasters the country has ever seen.
I'm not saying that we are the only ones who are violent. What I am saying is that violence never solves a problem, it only perpetuates more violence and revenge. People do not simply submit to abuse and do what you want them to.
People are not pacified through violence.
Are we safer now that Iran is the figurehead for defiance of the US? Before we went into Iraq, when we named Iran in the 'Axis of Evil', the Iranian government was struggling for legitimacy with its own people. Much of the Iranian population didn't want to live under a religiously based set of laws, and the Iranian government didn't have much power to do anything. But what happens when the US starts being aggressive toward Iran and other Middle Eastern countries? Everyone rallies around Iran's position, strongly opposing the US.
And when more innocent Muslims die, we prove Iran, al Qaeda and Hezbollah right.
Bush and his advisers have never seen war, except for Collin Powell who is ironically a big opponent of the Iraq War. But Bush wants more war, he thinks Preemptive war is a great idea. They believe the US should be starting wars without provocation. Bush says that we should have an aggressive foreign policy. But should the US really be acting like the aggressor, starting wars and killing people around the world? No, the Bush Doctrine is completely un-American.
Now that we've ignored, abused, and discredited the UN are we safer? The UN represents the rule of law in international relations. Without the rule of law, nations resort to force. We didn't want the UN to stop us from invading Iraq, what happens now when we want to stop Iran and North Korea from developing Nuclear weapons? We can't ask the UN for help because we ignored them, now everyone else can ignore them. Force becomes a more likely option, because we don't have an alternative.
I sure as hell don't feel safer.
Thanks e-strip for being my journal
The Bush doctrine is preemptive war.
But we forget what war means. What is like to have a bomb dropped in your town, a big explosion in which 12 people die and 30 are injured? Everyone around the explosion stares in disbelief and fear, people pull survivors away from the fire. People's lives are ruined in an instant. Loved ones traumatically die in an act of violence and terror. What does that do to a town? What if at the same time the bridge you take to work has been bombed. The electric plant has been destroyed and the power has been off for days. People are using generators to power refrigerators, and hospitals. Surviving, and helping others survive through gasoline powered generators. While everywhere someone is mourning the loss of a loved one. In Lebanon this is happening right now. Every day.I fear that nothing is shocking anymore. We have seen so many explosions on TV that we have forgotten the true reality of it. The damage and suffering that they leave in their wake. Over 1,000 civilians have died in Lebanon in the last month. Hundreds of highways and bridges have been destroyed. A power plant on the cost was bombed and the oil the plant used to make electricity spilled onto the Mediterranean coastline creating one of the worst environmental disasters the country has ever seen.
I'm not saying that we are the only ones who are violent. What I am saying is that violence never solves a problem, it only perpetuates more violence and revenge. People do not simply submit to abuse and do what you want them to.
People are not pacified through violence.
Are we safer now that Iran is the figurehead for defiance of the US? Before we went into Iraq, when we named Iran in the 'Axis of Evil', the Iranian government was struggling for legitimacy with its own people. Much of the Iranian population didn't want to live under a religiously based set of laws, and the Iranian government didn't have much power to do anything. But what happens when the US starts being aggressive toward Iran and other Middle Eastern countries? Everyone rallies around Iran's position, strongly opposing the US.
And when more innocent Muslims die, we prove Iran, al Qaeda and Hezbollah right.
Bush and his advisers have never seen war, except for Collin Powell who is ironically a big opponent of the Iraq War. But Bush wants more war, he thinks Preemptive war is a great idea. They believe the US should be starting wars without provocation. Bush says that we should have an aggressive foreign policy. But should the US really be acting like the aggressor, starting wars and killing people around the world? No, the Bush Doctrine is completely un-American.
Now that we've ignored, abused, and discredited the UN are we safer? The UN represents the rule of law in international relations. Without the rule of law, nations resort to force. We didn't want the UN to stop us from invading Iraq, what happens now when we want to stop Iran and North Korea from developing Nuclear weapons? We can't ask the UN for help because we ignored them, now everyone else can ignore them. Force becomes a more likely option, because we don't have an alternative.
I sure as hell don't feel safer.
Thanks e-strip for being my journal
metalpeter - 08/15/06 19:33
I think the Peace Movement is a good movement. It can work, but for it to work all parties in conflicts must have a peace movement. For example if the peacefull muslums instead of the violant assholes who are in chrage could take over the government then there would be no reason to fight with the Jews. However at the same time if the Jews still hate the arabs and want a fight wich I belive they do then there won't be peace the jews must also have a peace movement. The problem is that the people who want peace have no way to take over the armies peacfully. I belive you can have peace and have an army to be used only a a defense it can be done.
On a side note I think the Korea situtation can be fixed through peace. But not by the Ameriacans. Again it has to be done by the brainwashed Koreans overthrowing Kim Jong Ill II, but how do you do that peacefully. My understand is that North Korea would like to be united with the South. But the south dosn't think that they are ready yet and that hopefully some day they can do it right. Granted the piece I saw was from a few years ago but the general gist was that the wall coming down in germany wasn't really that great because it is like an invisable wall is still up and the country is still seperated and South Korea dosn't want that to Happen. Maybe Kim will get smart and think about what is best for everyone in stead of having his people worship him like a god.
I think the Peace Movement is a good movement. It can work, but for it to work all parties in conflicts must have a peace movement. For example if the peacefull muslums instead of the violant assholes who are in chrage could take over the government then there would be no reason to fight with the Jews. However at the same time if the Jews still hate the arabs and want a fight wich I belive they do then there won't be peace the jews must also have a peace movement. The problem is that the people who want peace have no way to take over the armies peacfully. I belive you can have peace and have an army to be used only a a defense it can be done.
On a side note I think the Korea situtation can be fixed through peace. But not by the Ameriacans. Again it has to be done by the brainwashed Koreans overthrowing Kim Jong Ill II, but how do you do that peacefully. My understand is that North Korea would like to be united with the South. But the south dosn't think that they are ready yet and that hopefully some day they can do it right. Granted the piece I saw was from a few years ago but the general gist was that the wall coming down in germany wasn't really that great because it is like an invisable wall is still up and the country is still seperated and South Korea dosn't want that to Happen. Maybe Kim will get smart and think about what is best for everyone in stead of having his people worship him like a god.
joshua - 08/15/06 14:00
I suppose I should answer Dcoffee's question, since I didn't in my previous message. We are CERTAINLY safer, but the sticking point is how much of our personal liberty are we willing to give up in order to achieve some sort of balance. The right has a field day with the left on this issue precisely because lefties see the effect on personal liberties and believe that its an unneeded burden. This of course is when you hear the "pre-9/11 attitude" charges and the "jingoist police state" charges being levied. Unequivocally, we are safer. But at what expense?
Ajay, where do you start? I would suggest getting educated about the last 50 years of American political discourse as a good starting point.
Carter - the left's hero. This is the same guy who encouraged the Shah's military commanders to step down and accept the Ayatollah's leadership as a way to "broker peace." Shortly thereafter, all 150 of them were killed as one of the Ayatollah's first acts, and lead the way to the founding of one of the most repressive and anti-American governments in existence. That was just an appretizer to what Carter did under Clinton's watch for North Korea. As you know, he foolishly gave away the farm to North Korea in exchange for a *promise* to stop a nuclear program. Of course the NK's couldn't be trusted as we now see. Carter, the supposed human rights advocate, is busy chumming up with Iran and North Korea, which is why his political AND human rights records are a complete laughing stock. Nobel Peace Prize? The same thing they gave to Arafat? Puhleease.
In order to avoid embarrassing yourself by supporting Carter I would suggest reading up a little more about his presidency and his current efforts to prop up criminal and corrupt regimes. Oh, P.S. - what he did with Israel and Egypt was no different than what Israel did with several of its Arab neighbors, including the moderate counties such as Jordan. And by the way - Carter is not a neutral in the Middle East either. The man has received millions of dollars in the past from Arab sources, and the Carter Center would likely have not been possible without those donations. :::link:::
Peace movements do not end war and bring lasting peace. Never have, never will. What King and Gandhi did were legendary, and I admire both men, but do not confuse what they did then with what is going on now in the world's current political climate. Lefties fundamentally don't understand the Middle East situation. This ain't Cops And Robbers, okay?
To answer Libertad - Hezbollah has an edict in its charter to destroy Israel. Iran's President has on multiple occasions recently stated that the destruction of Israel is the only thing that will bring peace to the region. Recent estimates calculate the amount of "radicals" in the Muslim world at 300 million. 300 million! These people are well armed, well funded and are complete zealots. They do not only want to destroy Israel, but us and Europe as well. When the well armed and funded Arab leaders directly involved with this conflict explicitly state that they want to see millions of Jews dead and the destruction of the Jewish state, we had better take them seriously. Its not a matter of if, but when. Do pacifists really believe that Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda can be *talked out* of one of their most fundamental and religiously tied beliefs? I hate to say it, but this one is going to end badly. I don't think the bombs in the ME are going to stop for a long time, as if they ever really did.
I suppose I should answer Dcoffee's question, since I didn't in my previous message. We are CERTAINLY safer, but the sticking point is how much of our personal liberty are we willing to give up in order to achieve some sort of balance. The right has a field day with the left on this issue precisely because lefties see the effect on personal liberties and believe that its an unneeded burden. This of course is when you hear the "pre-9/11 attitude" charges and the "jingoist police state" charges being levied. Unequivocally, we are safer. But at what expense?
Ajay, where do you start? I would suggest getting educated about the last 50 years of American political discourse as a good starting point.
Carter - the left's hero. This is the same guy who encouraged the Shah's military commanders to step down and accept the Ayatollah's leadership as a way to "broker peace." Shortly thereafter, all 150 of them were killed as one of the Ayatollah's first acts, and lead the way to the founding of one of the most repressive and anti-American governments in existence. That was just an appretizer to what Carter did under Clinton's watch for North Korea. As you know, he foolishly gave away the farm to North Korea in exchange for a *promise* to stop a nuclear program. Of course the NK's couldn't be trusted as we now see. Carter, the supposed human rights advocate, is busy chumming up with Iran and North Korea, which is why his political AND human rights records are a complete laughing stock. Nobel Peace Prize? The same thing they gave to Arafat? Puhleease.
In order to avoid embarrassing yourself by supporting Carter I would suggest reading up a little more about his presidency and his current efforts to prop up criminal and corrupt regimes. Oh, P.S. - what he did with Israel and Egypt was no different than what Israel did with several of its Arab neighbors, including the moderate counties such as Jordan. And by the way - Carter is not a neutral in the Middle East either. The man has received millions of dollars in the past from Arab sources, and the Carter Center would likely have not been possible without those donations. :::link:::
Peace movements do not end war and bring lasting peace. Never have, never will. What King and Gandhi did were legendary, and I admire both men, but do not confuse what they did then with what is going on now in the world's current political climate. Lefties fundamentally don't understand the Middle East situation. This ain't Cops And Robbers, okay?
To answer Libertad - Hezbollah has an edict in its charter to destroy Israel. Iran's President has on multiple occasions recently stated that the destruction of Israel is the only thing that will bring peace to the region. Recent estimates calculate the amount of "radicals" in the Muslim world at 300 million. 300 million! These people are well armed, well funded and are complete zealots. They do not only want to destroy Israel, but us and Europe as well. When the well armed and funded Arab leaders directly involved with this conflict explicitly state that they want to see millions of Jews dead and the destruction of the Jewish state, we had better take them seriously. Its not a matter of if, but when. Do pacifists really believe that Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda can be *talked out* of one of their most fundamental and religiously tied beliefs? I hate to say it, but this one is going to end badly. I don't think the bombs in the ME are going to stop for a long time, as if they ever really did.
dcoffee - 08/15/06 13:48
Thanks Ajay, you covered my examples. Ghandi had the moral highground because of the peacefull means used, and so did MLK. That's the point, you can beat the crapout of someone to get your way, but noone will think you're right. If you are right you can always proove it through non-violent means.
And Carter was definitely the one who brought peace to Israel and Ejypt, one of the only agreements to last. And he was smart enough to put people in his cabinet from opposite ends of the political spectrum so he could understand those in opposition and support of different policies.
Thanks Ajay, you covered my examples. Ghandi had the moral highground because of the peacefull means used, and so did MLK. That's the point, you can beat the crapout of someone to get your way, but noone will think you're right. If you are right you can always proove it through non-violent means.
And Carter was definitely the one who brought peace to Israel and Ejypt, one of the only agreements to last. And he was smart enough to put people in his cabinet from opposite ends of the political spectrum so he could understand those in opposition and support of different policies.
libertad - 08/15/06 09:38
I have had it wrong all the time. We have to bomb our way to peace! Duh! What was I thinking?!
I have had it wrong all the time. We have to bomb our way to peace! Duh! What was I thinking?!
ajay - 08/15/06 03:45
This is worse than shooting fish in a barrel. Where do I start?
"The UN has been ineffective and inefficient for a LONG time without our help."
.... and yet poor Colin Powell was forced to go out and outright lie to build a case for war. If UN is so irrelevant, why bother?
"No peace movements have EVER stopped violence or bloodshed from happening,"
... tell that to Rev. Martin Luther King, Mahatama Gandhi, etc. And dare I point out Vietnam?
"Carter proved that liberals don't understand the nature of the Middle East crisis"
.... and yet Carter was the one who got Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, bringing an end to decades of wars.
This is worse than shooting fish in a barrel. Where do I start?
"The UN has been ineffective and inefficient for a LONG time without our help."
.... and yet poor Colin Powell was forced to go out and outright lie to build a case for war. If UN is so irrelevant, why bother?
"No peace movements have EVER stopped violence or bloodshed from happening,"
... tell that to Rev. Martin Luther King, Mahatama Gandhi, etc. And dare I point out Vietnam?
"Carter proved that liberals don't understand the nature of the Middle East crisis"
.... and yet Carter was the one who got Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, bringing an end to decades of wars.
joshua - 08/15/06 00:09
The UN discredited itself a LONG time ago - watching several hundred thousand Rwandans get murdered while twittling their thumbs didn't do them any good... and that is just a start. The UN has never done any palpable good for humanity. No "Bush doctrine" or whatever else the crunchy granola kooks have themselves believing has never affected the credibility of the UN. The UN has been ineffective and inefficient for a LONG time without our help.
Secondly - "People are not pacified through violence." You know what? People have never been pacified through peace movements either. No peace movements have EVER stopped violence or bloodshed from happening, and that does include the hippies and radicals in the 1960's as well. Not that the pacifist path is pointless, but what liberals like yourself have never figured out is that there are some problems that can only be solved by a man with a gun. Fuck Iraq, do you actually think that Iran or North Korea are two problems that are going to be solved through non-violent means? To believe so is to be naive.
Thirdly - the Iranian regime currently in power has clamped down on its own population for a LONG time. Much of the Iranian people didn't want to live under religiously set laws? Laughable.
The truth is, you and your fellow anti-war folk are not convincing the American people that you are a reasonable alternative. You people are feeding into the propaganda that is being fueled by people like Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Carter proved that liberals don't understand the nature of the Middle East crisis, and there is nothing going on right now on the Democratic/liberal/radical side that is convincing the American people that Democrats have a plan to handle terrorism. The reason Kerry lost is that Americans don't trust liberals when it comes to national security, and with great reason - liberal controlled Congress chipped away at our military effectiveness for 20 years until Reagan came along.
Your rhetoric was lifted straight off of Air America. I'm not even getting into the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, which the radical left has gotten dead wrong from the start. The truth is, Democrats don't have the guts to handle the terrorism issue effectively for a myriad of reasons I'd be happy to detail for you or anyone else, which is why despite (if you believe the polling, anyway) alot of Republicans having problems that you aren't going to see a Democratically controlled branch of Congress in '06 or for absolutely sure the White House in '08.
The UN discredited itself a LONG time ago - watching several hundred thousand Rwandans get murdered while twittling their thumbs didn't do them any good... and that is just a start. The UN has never done any palpable good for humanity. No "Bush doctrine" or whatever else the crunchy granola kooks have themselves believing has never affected the credibility of the UN. The UN has been ineffective and inefficient for a LONG time without our help.
Secondly - "People are not pacified through violence." You know what? People have never been pacified through peace movements either. No peace movements have EVER stopped violence or bloodshed from happening, and that does include the hippies and radicals in the 1960's as well. Not that the pacifist path is pointless, but what liberals like yourself have never figured out is that there are some problems that can only be solved by a man with a gun. Fuck Iraq, do you actually think that Iran or North Korea are two problems that are going to be solved through non-violent means? To believe so is to be naive.
Thirdly - the Iranian regime currently in power has clamped down on its own population for a LONG time. Much of the Iranian people didn't want to live under religiously set laws? Laughable.
The truth is, you and your fellow anti-war folk are not convincing the American people that you are a reasonable alternative. You people are feeding into the propaganda that is being fueled by people like Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Carter proved that liberals don't understand the nature of the Middle East crisis, and there is nothing going on right now on the Democratic/liberal/radical side that is convincing the American people that Democrats have a plan to handle terrorism. The reason Kerry lost is that Americans don't trust liberals when it comes to national security, and with great reason - liberal controlled Congress chipped away at our military effectiveness for 20 years until Reagan came along.
Your rhetoric was lifted straight off of Air America. I'm not even getting into the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, which the radical left has gotten dead wrong from the start. The truth is, Democrats don't have the guts to handle the terrorism issue effectively for a myriad of reasons I'd be happy to detail for you or anyone else, which is why despite (if you believe the polling, anyway) alot of Republicans having problems that you aren't going to see a Democratically controlled branch of Congress in '06 or for absolutely sure the White House in '08.
metalpeter - 08/14/06 18:00
I feal no safer and I don't feal any more in danger. The US has been hated for a long time for its hypocrocy. We do stuff like saying tourture is bad and not to do it, but the CIA has done it for years, We where aganst chemical weapons then Napalmed the shit out of Vietnam. We are the great melting pot where everyone is treated equally but yet look at the ghetto and all the racial seperation and it used to legal and women couldn't vote. I know that may be in the past but other countries remember shit like that. Plus we tend to stick our buisness into places where it isn't wanted. We supported evil dictators who where opposed to communism. Basicly most of our presidents have made a lot of enemies around the world.
I feal no safer and I don't feal any more in danger. The US has been hated for a long time for its hypocrocy. We do stuff like saying tourture is bad and not to do it, but the CIA has done it for years, We where aganst chemical weapons then Napalmed the shit out of Vietnam. We are the great melting pot where everyone is treated equally but yet look at the ghetto and all the racial seperation and it used to legal and women couldn't vote. I know that may be in the past but other countries remember shit like that. Plus we tend to stick our buisness into places where it isn't wanted. We supported evil dictators who where opposed to communism. Basicly most of our presidents have made a lot of enemies around the world.
uncutsaniflush - 08/13/06 17:40
Believe it or not, there are many people, and I actually know some of them, who will say "I'm glad Mr. Bush is president because he has stood up to the terrorists" no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.
After all, over 50 percent of the people in a recent survey believe that Iraq had WMD's.
But, to answer your question directly, no, I don't feel safer.
And I don't feel safer having Mr. Bush in the White House.
Believe it or not, there are many people, and I actually know some of them, who will say "I'm glad Mr. Bush is president because he has stood up to the terrorists" no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.
After all, over 50 percent of the people in a recent survey believe that Iraq had WMD's.
But, to answer your question directly, no, I don't feel safer.
And I don't feel safer having Mr. Bush in the White House.
07/31/2006 22:44 #21737
Understand War a little betterCategory: war
Below is a video from Lebanon, by Kevin Sites, a Yahoo News reporter.
It is easy for the Neoconservatives to claim that military bombardment fits into some grand scheme to bring stability to anything.
But if you see, with your own eyes, what actually happens when you drop a bomb on a town, you realize that war is not a solution to anything. War and violence only inspires hatred, revenge, and more death. War is not a solution, it IS the problem.
Bombarding Lebanon has done nothing but inspire fierce and persistent Hatred for America and Israel.
Solutions are found when people sit at a table and talk to one another, not through death, killing and chaos.
The US and Israel are purposefully instigating a war with the Muslim world. I do not know why. But nobody in their right mind would think that these bombings are reducing the threat of terrorism.
What we are really doing in Lebanon, is giving people another good reason to hate us. We are frustrating them and terrorizing their lives to the point that they will take up arms against us. And we are training militants in combat every day we fight them.
The bombing of Lebanon is completely irrational, unless your goal is world war. America has lost it's mind and its soul.
This is a video from a reporter what happened to be a block away from the attack. He runs over with his video camera and captures the aftermath, going directly to the site and talking to the man whose house was bombed. You can see and hear the chaos that abounds in the small country of Lebanon.
In this country we are very insulated from the effects of our 'aggressive' policies. Fortunately for us we can find videos like this on the internet, so we do not have to be so ignorant, as the war mongerers in Washington would like us to be.
The link is below, don't bother reading the news article, to me it relies on the "official" description of events too much. Personally I don't trust the government to interpret the news for me, they lie too much.
Watch the videos, there are 2, they are both good. The photo essay is good too. The second video down 'The chaotic aftermath of the air strike' is uncensored reality, it is a must see for us sheltered Americans.
See the videos here:
More from the reporter can be found here It's nice to have a few minutes of video from the places we hear about on the news.
It is easy for the Neoconservatives to claim that military bombardment fits into some grand scheme to bring stability to anything.
But if you see, with your own eyes, what actually happens when you drop a bomb on a town, you realize that war is not a solution to anything. War and violence only inspires hatred, revenge, and more death. War is not a solution, it IS the problem.
Bombarding Lebanon has done nothing but inspire fierce and persistent Hatred for America and Israel.
Solutions are found when people sit at a table and talk to one another, not through death, killing and chaos.
The US and Israel are purposefully instigating a war with the Muslim world. I do not know why. But nobody in their right mind would think that these bombings are reducing the threat of terrorism.
What we are really doing in Lebanon, is giving people another good reason to hate us. We are frustrating them and terrorizing their lives to the point that they will take up arms against us. And we are training militants in combat every day we fight them.
The bombing of Lebanon is completely irrational, unless your goal is world war. America has lost it's mind and its soul.
This is a video from a reporter what happened to be a block away from the attack. He runs over with his video camera and captures the aftermath, going directly to the site and talking to the man whose house was bombed. You can see and hear the chaos that abounds in the small country of Lebanon.
In this country we are very insulated from the effects of our 'aggressive' policies. Fortunately for us we can find videos like this on the internet, so we do not have to be so ignorant, as the war mongerers in Washington would like us to be.
The link is below, don't bother reading the news article, to me it relies on the "official" description of events too much. Personally I don't trust the government to interpret the news for me, they lie too much.
Watch the videos, there are 2, they are both good. The photo essay is good too. The second video down 'The chaotic aftermath of the air strike' is uncensored reality, it is a must see for us sheltered Americans.
See the videos here:
More from the reporter can be found here
It's nice to have a few minutes of video from the places we hear about on the news.07/19/2006 23:49 #21736
Voting on the casinoCategory: casino
Just had a idea.
The casino thing is all up in the air. But we really don't have to wait for a lawsuit, or for Albany to figure itself out, or Washington where the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton approved the land transfer for the Indians and later resigned under corruption allegations.
We can figure this out for ourselves. The City Council can put a referendum on the ballot one of these elections, and ask the voters support, or do not support an sovereign Indian-operated casino in downtown Buffalo. Yes or no to the casino.
And if we say no, the city agrees to not comply with the casino, by not agreeing to any permits or easements so that the casino can not operate.
And if it comes into question with the federal government, the people of the city voted for it, what can they do? The federal government might be able to override the city government on some things, but the people? the voters? We can't be easily overridden.
Thoughts?
The casino thing is all up in the air. But we really don't have to wait for a lawsuit, or for Albany to figure itself out, or Washington where the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton approved the land transfer for the Indians and later resigned under corruption allegations.
We can figure this out for ourselves. The City Council can put a referendum on the ballot one of these elections, and ask the voters support, or do not support an sovereign Indian-operated casino in downtown Buffalo. Yes or no to the casino.
And if we say no, the city agrees to not comply with the casino, by not agreeing to any permits or easements so that the casino can not operate.
And if it comes into question with the federal government, the people of the city voted for it, what can they do? The federal government might be able to override the city government on some things, but the people? the voters? We can't be easily overridden.
Thoughts?
dcoffee - 07/20/06 19:42
Yes it is, the Secretary of the Interior is the one who deals with indian land claims and such. She turned it over to them. even though it does not meet the criteria for a new reservation. It is not adjacent to Indian territory, nor is it a former reservation. it is true that most of south Buffalo was once the Buffalo Creek Indian Reservation, but that area is a minimum of 2 miles from the current site. So on the casino site you can smoke in restaurants, and everything else, cause it's not part of NYS.
Yes it is, the Secretary of the Interior is the one who deals with indian land claims and such. She turned it over to them. even though it does not meet the criteria for a new reservation. It is not adjacent to Indian territory, nor is it a former reservation. it is true that most of south Buffalo was once the Buffalo Creek Indian Reservation, but that area is a minimum of 2 miles from the current site. So on the casino site you can smoke in restaurants, and everything else, cause it's not part of NYS.
jason - 07/20/06 14:31
Interesting thoughts, David. Isn't the land being built upon considered sovereign territory?
Interesting thoughts, David. Isn't the land being built upon considered sovereign territory?
07/16/2006 23:11 #21735
East Side Bike TourCategory: buffalo
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to post these. This bike trip was one week ago Sunday.
I went on a 4 hour bike trip of the East Side of Buffalo, there was about 16 of us. Our Tour guide was David Torke from Fix Buffalo Great group of People. I stayed and had Lunch with David, Cynthia Van Ness, and Scott. It was a lot of fun talking about the city.
I always wanted to see more of the East Side, it's so vast and unfamiliar. Bike riding was great, you're able to see everything from a human perspective, not in a car.
We mostly toured architectural treasures that were abandoned, some badly decayed. But we also got a feel for what it is like to live on the East Side. We saw some of what has been done to help or hinder these communities. We saw some of the worst streets in broad daylight. And we saw how few people there are in some areas.
The thing that struck me the most was how much it felt like the country. The East Side is pretty sparsely populated in some areas. You have streets with 14 houses 8 of which are abandoned, then 6 open lots from demolished homes. The abandoned homes become sweet unsupervised hangouts for neighborhood kids, and then trouble starts. Fire, drugs, violence, sex. After seeing these neighborhoods first hand I have a lot better understanding of exactly what it is like to live in a state of worry. You also begin to the roots of problems.
David Torke mentioned trying to get people organized on the East Side, he said people are kind of 'suspicious' of each other. That struck me as a profound insight into the environment and the people, and the types of tensions one encounters.
The East Side really isn't so bad, I dispelled a lot of my myths and fears about it. A lot of it is abandoned, but some strips are active, and there are things going on. We rode by a couple of storefront churches with their doors open, and there were gospel bands playing with a full drum set, and bass. People live there, they have just been ignored for so long that they don't expect the government to help.
But the appeal of the East Side is that, in a weird way, it's kind of like the country. There are some open spaces where homes have been removed and fields of grass have taken over. Areas around train tracks and dead end streets that are mostly abandoned. Some times there will be 4-8 open spaces next to each other that create a field.
Last Chance to take the tour this summer!! Saturday September 2nd start at Coe Pl. and Main St. at 11:00. More info at Fix Buffalo
I posted a whole bunch of photos from the trip on Flickr in fact there are 54 photos in the set
Here are some, but there are way too many good ones. We went to the train Station and I took a lot of pictures. I was also riding with the camera around my neck and taking pictures without looking. What a great opportunity.
Yes, that is on the East Side. off of Clinton Street. Realy neat feeling to the place.
/ This is the back of the church below /
Transfiguration Church at 929 Sycamore Street.
Urban Prairie on Koons Avenue. Really interesting spot.
More on Flickr
Check it out!
I went on a 4 hour bike trip of the East Side of Buffalo, there was about 16 of us. Our Tour guide was David Torke from Fix Buffalo
Great group of People. I stayed and had Lunch with David, Cynthia Van Ness, and Scott. It was a lot of fun talking about the city.I always wanted to see more of the East Side, it's so vast and unfamiliar. Bike riding was great, you're able to see everything from a human perspective, not in a car.
We mostly toured architectural treasures that were abandoned, some badly decayed. But we also got a feel for what it is like to live on the East Side. We saw some of what has been done to help or hinder these communities. We saw some of the worst streets in broad daylight. And we saw how few people there are in some areas.
The thing that struck me the most was how much it felt like the country. The East Side is pretty sparsely populated in some areas. You have streets with 14 houses 8 of which are abandoned, then 6 open lots from demolished homes. The abandoned homes become sweet unsupervised hangouts for neighborhood kids, and then trouble starts. Fire, drugs, violence, sex. After seeing these neighborhoods first hand I have a lot better understanding of exactly what it is like to live in a state of worry. You also begin to the roots of problems.
David Torke mentioned trying to get people organized on the East Side, he said people are kind of 'suspicious' of each other. That struck me as a profound insight into the environment and the people, and the types of tensions one encounters.
The East Side really isn't so bad, I dispelled a lot of my myths and fears about it. A lot of it is abandoned, but some strips are active, and there are things going on. We rode by a couple of storefront churches with their doors open, and there were gospel bands playing with a full drum set, and bass. People live there, they have just been ignored for so long that they don't expect the government to help.
But the appeal of the East Side is that, in a weird way, it's kind of like the country. There are some open spaces where homes have been removed and fields of grass have taken over. Areas around train tracks and dead end streets that are mostly abandoned. Some times there will be 4-8 open spaces next to each other that create a field.
Last Chance to take the tour this summer!! Saturday September 2nd start at Coe Pl. and Main St. at 11:00. More info at Fix Buffalo
I posted a whole bunch of photos from the trip on Flickr
in fact there are 54 photos in the set Here are some, but there are way too many good ones. We went to the train Station and I took a lot of pictures. I was also riding with the camera around my neck and taking pictures without looking. What a great opportunity.
Yes, that is on the East Side. off of Clinton Street. Realy neat feeling to the place.
/ This is the back of the church below /
Transfiguration Church at 929 Sycamore Street.
Urban Prairie on Koons Avenue. Really interesting spot.
More on Flickr
Check it out!
Hey there, wow, thanks for taking the time to write back to me, and for being so thoughtful.
Here is a link to a Lebanese Forces web log, describing Hezbollah's tactics.
:::link:::
Sadly what we hear is more than just talk radio rhetoric. These folks are not stupid, and their tactics seem to ensure that any retribution would mean the death of many civilians, and a sympathetic media. I've heard of some even worse things, like using ambulances to carry ammo and fighters, but that is nearly impossible to verify completely. What we do know is that they blend into the civlian populace wonderfully.
I've only been listening to WHLD in the car, and it seems the answer to ridiculous right wing rhetoric is ridiculous left wing rhetoric. Actually I like Grady Hawkins, so I'll exclude him, but anyway I don't think of any American as "the enemy" and that's the way people are approaching this mess. It is getting us nowhere. Really it is up to normal Americans like you and I to take these problems seriously and to search for real answers.
Anyhow, the main point I want to make today is that I agree completely that bombing the living hell out of people is the worst peace strategy possible. I think reasonable people come to this conclusion. It also is not what I would call the "primary" strategy we should be using to fight terrorism. I'll just have to elaborate on that another time.
I'm not sure that you and I agree 100% on how to make peace, but without a doubt I'm on board with you that we have to be the best example possible (I wrote something to that effect in my last post). We have to ensure that we give zero excuses for people to blow us up. We have to have the moral authority and today we do not.
You wouldn't believe how much of a beating I have taken in conservative circles.